- Aug 30, 2016
Thank you for also posting here ! I will copy/paste the response for everyone... as this answers other questions above!X posting from Dash Central.
Hi just a couple of thoughts, the proposal says you will develop Dash wallet wizards for 4 wallet apps. Wouldn't it make sense to have commitments from those wallets you plan to integrate ahead of making the proposal. Because if there are third parties involved is harder to make predictions on the reception of the idea on behalf of those 3rd party wallets.
Is also important to notice that it may not be appropriate to integrate specific broker APIs into the reference core wallets, the reference clients should remain neutral and allow for different brokers to compete for volume. I think this will be great for Evolution where all brokers will have the same opportunity to integrate into the DAPI and be part of the Apps marketplace.
Just clarifying and making sure the reference clients were not counted on the 4 wallet apps you were considering. You can definitely create and maintain your own WoC forks of the reference client but you should consider the technical debt of creating your own forks as you would need to maintain them going forward. Plus I think for the most part people would just continue to download the reference clients from dash.org. Having said this, if you are aware and willing to maintain your own version of the wallets going forward then I can understand the project better.
My recommendation would be to wait and do this as part of Evolution where the marketplace will be available, but totally understand if you will create and maintain your own WoC wallets going forward or if this will be to work with 3rd party wallets like Exodus and Jaxx. Would be good to have those commitments from 3rd parties ahead of making the proposal though.
Just my 2 duffs. Cheers.
1. Not all wallets want to make a commitment without a commitment. It's a chicken and egg problem. This is simply because everyone is too busy with their current work. The Dash funding will shift everyone's attention because that gives resources for that extra attention.
2. Neutrality: this does not harm a wallet's neutrality. Wall of Coins is the *only* service that offers this. Does Jaxx or Ethereum's wallet appear not neutral because they integrated Shape Shift? Of course not: shape shift was the only service that offers what they offer. What is better: the image of supreme neutrality by now allowing the ONLY API buy/sell Dash service for wallet users that want to buy/sell Dash, or to get Dash into the hands of the masses as quickly as possible while also being an example for other individuals to make a better API service? I say it's more important to get Dash into the hands of as many people as possible and to inspire other companies to create alternative solutions for the wallets. There's much more for everyone to gain.
3. This is for new work, not old work. The reference clients are not counted, as the proposal explicitly states that people will choose the 4 wallets to focus on.
4. Waiting: this proposal will not hinder future releases of projects such as Evolution. There are no negative drawbacks by starting today, especially when the Dash treasury has an available budget.
Will you invite and urge the wallets to comment? I understand you believe it would be good to have those commitments comments already, but the community must realize that these wallet leaders are *MUCH* too busy for this to get their attention. I know how to make this happen, and when MNOs vote yes on this and trust in me once again, they will see the developments happen Thank you again for asking!
I am here to serve Dash, my friend.